The Science Bithttps://thesciencebit.net
Public Struggles with Science, Scientists, and Scientific ResearchTue, 06 Dec 2016 06:16:56 +0000enhourly1http://wordpress.com/https://secure.gravatar.com/blavatar/44326f9292a7ed243968337ce78b86e9?s=96&d=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.wp.com%2Fi%2Fbuttonw-com.pngThe Science Bithttps://thesciencebit.net
“Are psychics the new psychologists?”https://thesciencebit.net/2016/08/23/are-psychics-the-new-psychologists/
https://thesciencebit.net/2016/08/23/are-psychics-the-new-psychologists/#respondTue, 23 Aug 2016 10:36:58 +0000http://thesciencebit.net/?p=9834Read More ›]]>The Sunday Independent ran a short piece on psychics the other week, in which I was quoted as referring to “unreliable forces” when I had actually said “unreliable sources.” My bad, I’m sure.

The writer had interviewed me for this piece many months ago. I guess the obvious joke here would somehow refer to the fact that I had no idea when it was going to be published. But I try not to make obvious jokes.

Here’s a taster:

With modern life comes instant gratification; people want immediate resolutions to their problems, but does the power of a psychic rest with personality type? Are you more likely to believe because you want to? Brian Hughes, Professor of Psychology at NUI Galway, doesn’t think so. “Human beings thrive on certainty and we are all prone to being convinced to some degree by authority figures; most of the information we get is from someone else. It’s not an individual character flaw that leads someone to trust unreliable forces.”

Filed under: Astrology, Psychics, Sunday Independent, Uncategorized Tagged: astrology, mediums, pseudoscience, Psychics, psychology]]>https://thesciencebit.net/2016/08/23/are-psychics-the-new-psychologists/feed/0Fortune teller smiling over her crystal ball.star2010Rethinking Psychology in Corkhttps://thesciencebit.net/2016/05/26/rethinking-psychology-with-professor-brian-hughes/
https://thesciencebit.net/2016/05/26/rethinking-psychology-with-professor-brian-hughes/#respondThu, 26 May 2016 08:19:38 +0000http://thesciencebit.net/2016/05/26/rethinking-psychology-with-professor-brian-hughes/Cork Skeptics: About the Talk: Attempts to explain the workings of the human mind have persisted as a popular cultural fascination for centuries. This has led to the emergence of scientific psychology, a modern empirical enterprise that…]]>

About the Talk: Attempts to explain the workings of the human mind have persisted as a popular cultural fascination for centuries. This has led to the emergence of scientific psychology, a modern empirical enterprise that uses scientific methods to resolve uncertainties in our understanding of people’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviours.

Nonetheless, psychology attracts significant attention from people who hold deeply negative views about science, and is often studied by students and researchers who lack true scientific rigour. This lecture examines psychology’s relationship with science and pseudoscience. It explores the nature of scientific reasoning, the contrasting way fringe scientists study the mind, and the creep of pseudoscientific practices into mainstream psychology.

It also considers the peculiar biases impeding psychologists from being truly rigorous, and argues that pseudoscience not only damages psychology, but threatens the coherence — and dignity — of humanity at large.

On Wednesday next, May 11th, we are very happy to welcome back Professor Brian Hughes, School of Psychology, NUIG, who will speak on the topic of his recently published radical and challenging book ‘Rethinking Psychology-Good Science, Bad Science, Pseudoscience’

Psychology is a science that impinges on mental health, education, industry, public health, applied social policy, and social attitudes. Unsurprisingly, it is one of the most popular science subjects in universities around the world. Nonetheless, psychology regularly attracts practitioners — and academics — who hold negative views about science or who lack scientific rigour. This lecture examines the various technical risks, biases, and scientific shortcomings that undermine the capacity of psychology to assert its claim to be a rigorous scientific discipline. It will be argued that psychology is marred from within by widespread tolerance for pseudoscientific attitudes amongst psychologists. Such problems afflict all areas of psychology, including those typically identified as the ‘most scientific’. It will also be argued that bad science in psychology impedes the general public’s understanding of all science, and undermines the dignity with which we humans – as a self-conscious species – view our own behaviour.

Wynn’s Hotel is a classy joint in Dublin city centre. For those interested, it was badly damaged during the 1916 Easter Rising — so allow me to gratuitously now claim a connection with the centenarian zeitgeist, just like everyone else seems to be doing these days. It is said that the guests at Wynn’s sat at their dining tables watching the mayhem unfold on the streets as if they were an audience watching a theatrical performance. That was until the hotel itself was bombed, at which point the guests fled, using a table-cloth as a makeshift white flag. What began as apparent entertainment ended as a life-threatening crisis that undermined the very fabric of society. But don’t worry, I am pretty sure that we won’t have anything like that next Wednesday.

Witness newly elected Irish parliamentarian, one Danny Healy Rae, and his speech to the house on climate change. My guess is that climate change is not a major concern of his constituents.

Non-Irish readers may wish to note that the Irish parliament consists of 158 members, so basically this guy is 158th of all there is. Secondly, in the recent parliamentary elections, he was one of the most voted for politicians in the country.

Thirdly, the Irish election led to a hung parliament. The two biggest parties have struggled to form a government, so there is much attention on the role of independent (non-party) members, who may be pork-bellied into propping up a minority administration.

Folks like this guy.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the acting Environment Minister made a speech today too, also on the subject of climate change. Naturally his was a little more scientifically informed that Danny Healy Rae’s. But bizarrely, nobody turned up. Literally nobody. Even though the parliament has 158 members – each elected to represent constituent citizens of the republic – not a single one of them turned up to hear the Environment Minister’s climate change speech. Dutifully he delivered it anyway, reading his prepared script into the record in an empty chamber.

Danny Healy Rae, meanwhile, has been trending on Twitter.

So who says scientific literacy is on the rise?

Filed under: Uncategorized]]>https://thesciencebit.net/2016/05/04/the-dead-hand-of-democracy/feed/3star2010That story on sex differences in the brain, line by linehttps://thesciencebit.net/2016/05/01/that-story-on-sex-differences-in-the-brain-line-by-line-2/
https://thesciencebit.net/2016/05/01/that-story-on-sex-differences-in-the-brain-line-by-line-2/#respondSun, 01 May 2016 12:43:41 +0000http://thesciencebit.net/2016/05/01/that-story-on-sex-differences-in-the-brain-line-by-line-2/The Science Bit: So, let’s take it from the top: Men’s and women’s brains really are different. No they’re not. This study did not look at anybody’s brains, nor did it compare the brains of one sex to those of…]]>

No they’re not. This study did not look at anybody’s brains, nor did it compare the brains of one sex to those of the other. The study recorded responses to quizzes.

Researchers say that if both sexes had access to the same levels of education, they’d expect women to do best on tests of memory – and men to excel at maths.

What the researchers actually say is: “We hypothesize that women benefit disproportionately from societal improvements [i.e. ‘access to the same levels of education’]because they may start from a more disadvantaged level.” In other words, the thrust of the finding is that equality of education helps to undo historically artificial sex differences.

The prediction comes after an analysis of how the sexes’ abilities varied across Europe across time.

Filed under: Uncategorized]]>https://thesciencebit.net/2016/05/01/that-story-on-sex-differences-in-the-brain-line-by-line-2/feed/0star2010Todd Akin’s empirical questionhttps://thesciencebit.net/2016/04/01/todd-akins-empirical-question-2/
https://thesciencebit.net/2016/04/01/todd-akins-empirical-question-2/#respondFri, 01 Apr 2016 12:32:18 +0000http://thesciencebit.net/2016/04/01/todd-akins-empirical-question-2/The Science Bit: So, as you may have heard, Mr Akin, the Republican Party Senate candidate in Missouri (hi, Missouri!) has some weird views on rape, conception, and abortion. Basically, this is what the Todd Akin t-shirts…]]>

I don’t usually re-blog my own posts, but this week, like many other folks, I have been taken aback by Donal Trump’s ongoing war on women — in particular, his claim that women who have abortions should definitely *not* be not punished, or punished, or not.

It has been said that Trump has equally enraged both right-wing conservatives and left-wing liberals with his comments. This is because left-wing liberals are supposed to be pro-choice, and right-wing conservatives are not supposed to say they think women should be punished (it doesn’t poll well with, for example, women).

Instead, they are supposed to say things like what Todd Akin blurted out in 2012; namely, that nature (i.e. God) has ways of ensuring that abortion is never truly necessary.

Hence, the following re-blog. The view Trump was trying to express has a very long history, and is unlikely to go away any time soon. Especially if he becomes President…

It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that [conception following rape] is really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.

Ha! “That whole thing!” Lovely. Now, much of the controversy surrounding these views stemmed from his use of the term “legitimate rape“, but really that was (it seems) just a temporary bout of word salad. He misspoke. You know, like when (Warning: old joke ahead) you want to say “Please pass the salt” but end up instead shouting “YOU RUINED MY LIFE!

Filed under: Uncategorized]]>https://thesciencebit.net/2016/04/01/todd-akins-empirical-question-2/feed/0star2010‘Rethinking Psychology’ is now availablehttps://thesciencebit.net/2016/03/21/rethinking-psychology-is-now-available/
https://thesciencebit.net/2016/03/21/rethinking-psychology-is-now-available/#commentsMon, 21 Mar 2016 10:00:12 +0000http://thesciencebit.net/?p=9723Read More ›]]>Alright, there really is no humble way of putting this. My new book [*blush*], having been trailed as “imminent” for several months, is now officially available. In all good booksellers, as they say (and they actually do say this).

I’ll be having an initial launch event in Galway in late April (details to follow). But in the meantime, here are all the formal bits and pieces you need to know…

From the cover:Psychology is one of the most popular subjects in universities across the world, offering unique insights into the human condition. However, its very popularity threatens to undermine its value as a discipline, and it often attracts those who lack scientific rigour. Taking a fresh look at common practices and pitfalls, Brian Hughes examines the relationship between psychology, science and pseudoscience, and explores the biases impeding many psychologists from being truly rigorous.

“Brian Hughes has written an important and engaging book exploring the relationships between science, pseudoscience, and psychology. He argues persuasively that psychology itself can properly be considered to be a true science but one that is marred within by pockets of pseudoscience. This book should be read by anyone with a serious interest in the subject.” — Professor Christopher French,Goldsmiths, University of London

“Hughes provides a timely and comprehensive reminder of the critical role of science in both academic and professional applications of psychology. It covers an impressive breadth of topics with incisive clarity and illustrates clearly the integral role of scientific approaches to understanding psychological phenomena.” — Dr David Hevey, Trinity College, Dublin

Contents

PART I

PSYCHOLOGY AND PSEUDOSCIENCE IN THEORY

Chapter 1

What is Science and Why is it Useful?

Chapter 2

What is Pseudoscience and Why is it Popular?

Chapter 3

The Scientific Nature of Psychology

Chapter 4

The Scientific Nature of Psychology

PART II

PSYCHOLOGY AND PSEUDOSCIENCE IN PRACTICE

Chapter 5

Examples from the Fringes: From Healing the Mind to Reading the Body

Chapter 6

Examples from the Mainstream: Biological Reductionism as Worldview

Chapter 7

Examples from the Mainstream: What Some People Say about What They Think They Think

Concerned readers might therefore be interested a newly launched European Commission initiative called REIsearch. Essentially it is a campaign aimed at getting European citizens more engaged in the science that affects their daily lives, to get them to better navigate the increasingly complex and blurry knowledge environment in which they find themselves, to increase their ability to make informed democratic decisions that influence policy, and lots more of that sort of thing.

Like many Euronitiatives, it is certainly ambitious. And complex. It involves lots of research institutions, science publishers, professional bodies, social media types, traditional media (including The Irish Times, El País, Der Standard, and so on), bloggers, and so forth, and a process whereby crowdsourced public opinion gets distilled and presented directly to the European Parliament and Commission. As far as you are concerned, however, it is one big website, and its address is as follows: http://reisearch.eu/

Yes, you have to create an account to get into it, but I did that and I survived. Overall, I think the system is certainly worth a look. By way of a pilot, the REIsearch team is starting with a focused campaign on the science relating to chronic disease, so you can participate in the various surveys and activities. Who knows, if it all works, then the way future governments make policy choices around healthcare, ehealth, prevention programmes, health behaviour change initiatives, and so on, might become more coherent.

Helping citizens to better understand scientific research has always been a challenge. But probably more important is getting them to care about how research should affect the policies that shape their lives.

Filed under: Uncategorized]]>https://thesciencebit.net/2016/02/26/this-new-european-wide-public-science-engagement-initiative-is-worth-a-look/feed/0star2010ztjp6Political sciencehttps://thesciencebit.net/2016/02/09/political-science/
https://thesciencebit.net/2016/02/09/political-science/#respondTue, 09 Feb 2016 08:43:27 +0000http://thesciencebit.net/?p=9583Read More ›]]>I have another post up over at Psychology Today, which has been included in a special feature on ‘The Science Behind Politics.’

This time I’m talking about negative political campaigning:

…The US Presidential Primaries have been widely maligned as a parade of interpersonal nastiness, the UK referendum is accused of being awash with scaremongering, and in the Irish case, one political leader denied engaging in negative campaigning even when unveiling a poster depicting his direct opponent as a threat to health and a champion of the rich elite.

Why does this always seem to happen? Surely this type of schoolyard mudslinging risks alienating voters?

…[A] newly published study—based on actual voting behavior, rather than opinion poll responses—shows that citizens are clearly influenced by negative campaigning, and reward politicians for using it.

What makes this particular study intriguing was its experimental design…

The UK government has published new guidelines on healthy alcohol consumption and, yes, as might be predicted, they are controversial. According to the new advice, adults — male or female — should drink no more than 14 units of alcohol per week. That approximates to around 6 glasses of beer or 7 glasses of wine. Beyond this, the UK Department of Health argue that the risk of alcohol-related death, especially cancer, is significantly increased.

To say that folks were unhappy about the new guidelines would be putting it mildly.

Feel free to read the rest of the piece here, if you are sober enough.